HIRALAL PATNI vs LOONKARAM SETHIYA & OTHERS

The Supreme Court held that a receiver appointed under a preliminary decree continues to function until discharged, even if a final decree is silent on the matter. The Court established that the receiver's powers persist until formally terminated, and the court retains authority to direct the receiver to recover possession of property. In this case, the appellant was required to return possession of the flour mill to the receiver upon the lease's expiration, as the court's arrangement was valid under Order 40 Rule 1(1)(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.